Thursday, June 14, 2012

I have previously opined that the Presidential race is one for Obama to loose. There is argument around the edges concerning the likely Electoral College vote but most show Obama better placed than Romney. For myself I think the 'Real Clear Politics' current projection which has Obama on 221 vs Romney on 170 with 147 rated too close to call about right at this time (with 270 needed to win).

So it's still looking good for Obama although he won't want too many weeks like the one just gone with his 'bumbling' Press Conference where he was forced to 'clarify' (read retract) his remarks on the state of the economy; the revelation that 'Gitmo', the Cuban Detention Centre he promised to close within 12 months of assuming office was being refurbished to the tune of several millions of dollars (including a soccer pitch for the inmates who are now being offered painting classes and lessons on personal finance) and the appointment of two special prosecutors to investigate leaks of damaging national security information from the White House.

But in the race for the popular vote both candidates are running neck to neck +/- and that raises the question of what would happen if Romney won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote. You see there is nothing to prevent an Electoral College elector switching his/her vote. There is no legal requirement for an elector to vote the way he/she is pledged and indeed that was an important and intentional decision of how the Electoral College should function letting human judgement make the final decision.

So I imagine that if Romney won the popular vote by a margin and was close in the Electoral College vote there would be huge pressure on Electoral College electors pledged to Obama to rethink their position. Mind you, wouldn't do much for their 'political' health as Democrats.

An interesting scenario for those of us fascinated with the US political system ... the good, the bad and the ugly.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but because he stole Florida it didn't matter. There's no way the Electoral College electors would "rethink" their position. This proves how clueless you are. Not as clueless as Adolt, but he takes quite some beating in the dumb as a sack of hammers department.

Electors to the Electoral College can and have switched votes. The system even has a name for them ... they are called 'Faithless Electors".

As a student of American politics I find the process fascinating. Don't necessarily agree with the framers of the Constitution who deliberately avoided penalising electors who switched votes but it is interesting speculating on a 'what if' scenario.

As for Bush vs Gore. Bush won with 271 against 266 with one elector abstaining. That elector was Barbara Lett-Simmons from Washington DC who had been expected to vote for Gore.

Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee which both he and his father had represented as Senators.If he had won Tennessee he would have been President.

With the way Obama is playing it, Romney will win the popular vote too.

I was curious how the US media is now blaming McCain for losing election 2008, as if to weaken someone who is campaigning effectively against the ObamaMessiah.It seems the failure of the Republicans in 2008 is no longer Sarah Palin's fault.

There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

Why I think electors might not vote for the candidate they are pledged to support is because it happens ... not often I grant you but, as Toto pointed out, there have been 10 such instances (his figures).

and, who is Russell and since when have I stopped you saying anything? ... but keep up with the personal abuse and I just might.